You mean you couldn't care less, right?
(Common usage error. Don't fret.)

Regardless of whether people actually use all the features of a product, it's about meeting your spec. When I buy a product with X number of features, I'm entering into a contract with the manufacturer. By the terms of that contract, the manufacturer must provide all the features advertised. Simple as that.

I would think this is more of a PR nightmare for Palm than anything else. Next time they release something, you can be sure people will be wondering if they included everything.

Posted by: MadMan on August 27, 2002 11:11 PM

 

I agree with MadMan. It's an issue of responsiblity. In this case, legally actionable.

Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 27, 2002 11:38 PM

 

Just because you have a *legal right* to sue, does not mean you have an *ethical* right to. If the usuability does not suffer, and it wasn't intentional, why sue the poor buggers? It's not as if they are serial offernders or anything... What was that again about the spirit of the law and not the law itself?

Posted by: Nagarjun on August 28, 2002 08:17 AM

 

That is America, nation of litigants. If a woman can sue McDonald's over hot coffee on her lap, well...

Posted by: MadMan on August 28, 2002 09:32 AM

 

MadMan, speaking of hot coffee and McDonalds, I actually worked with a woman who was the human factors expert witness on that lawsuit. She stated that while many people were outraged about the lawsuit, many things were brought to light about ergonomics and usability. She stated that while the woman was mostly to blame, McDonald's product wasn't well designed.

For example, the structural integrity of a McDonalds cup is substantially decreased when it is filled with hot coffee. It is meant to be used with the top on it to reduce spilling and keep the cup in the proper form. Like many other people, the woman took the top off to let it cool down. By doing this she made the walls of the coffee cup much weaker. She didn't actually spill the coffee; the cup collapsed when she took it out of the cup holder. Before you laugh, consider that McDonalds deliberately created a low cost coffee cup with weak walls. It was argued that if the integrity of the cup was compromised by taking the top off, then the top should be fixed in place. Or, the walls of the cup should be thicker.

I'm not saying that I agree with any of this, but it is interesting to hear the other side; the human factors side.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 28, 2002 09:49 AM

 

What about Palm's ethical responsibilities to make truthful claims about the capabilities of its products?

Also, the supposed 16-bit color was a major differentiator between Palm's product and its competition. It's easier to imagine that Palm deliberately gave erroneous information about its product to receive better reviews and higher sales, than it is to imagine that Palm is operating at a level of incompetence that would allow such errors. Of course, the error is most likely the result of both incompetence and unethical behavior.

Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 28, 2002 10:16 AM

 

John, if that is truly what happened, then McD deserves to be sued for not meeting the "fit for purpose" criteria.

I was led to believe that she spilled the coffee and sued McD for making the coffee too hot. I'm too lazy right now to dig up related links and verify it.

If the cup itself was unstable, and it was reasonably foreseeable that people would a) take the top off the cup and b) the cup out of the coffee holder, then McDonald's should have designed for it.

That said, there is a lot of weird litigation in USA, wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: MadMan on August 28, 2002 11:44 AM

 

Ron is right. Tomorrow, Seagate could ship 80GB hard drives, advertise them as 100 GB, and say that most people don't use more than 40GB on their hard disks, so what difference does it make?
I rarely use my floppy drive, but that doesn't mean a PC vendor can get away with not installing one if I've paid for it.

If companies start believing that they can mislead people and get away with it... oh wait, they already do. Enron, Worldcom, Xerox, [insert favourite big company here]

It's improbable that a big company like Palm could let such a limitation slip by "unintentionally" and at the same time use it as a big selling feature. Nuh uh. A wee bit too much of a conincidence, don't you think? I'm with Ron on this one.

Posted by: MadMan on August 28, 2002 11:55 AM

 

Your honour, please also note that the defence does not plan to offer any refunds to customers who bought the device. I quote from the linked story:

The company is apologizing for the problem but is not planning to offer refunds, Somsak said. Palm will also change the packaging and advertising for the m130 to address the discrepancy.

Aha! Truly the sign of a repenting company.

Posted by: MadMan on August 28, 2002 11:58 AM

 

McFacts abut the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit -- Doesn't mention anything about the cup integrity but does offer other interesting facts.

Telling It Like Is Is... Even If It Isn't -- "The woman was sitting in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. They went through a drive through, then he pulled to a stop out of the way of the next car behind them so she could open the coffee. It was then, in a stopped car, that the coffee spilled. One myth of this case is that she was driving the car and tried to open the coffee while the car was moving." (Comments: Hmmm. Still no mention of the cup integrity.)

My quick netcheck does not reveal anything about "cup integrity" so now I wonder if I was fed a line of crap. I often wonder what people can and cannot say regarding a trial.

In related news...Obese Man Sues Fast Food

(And yes MadMan, I agree that there are too many lawsuits in the United States.)

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 28, 2002 01:13 PM

 

For some reason, this whole thing reminds me of the False Advertising Gallery.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 28, 2002 01:22 PM

 

I think the point that should be held up here is... would you notice any difference in the performance of the product if the claim and the actuality are different.

With Palm - I doubt it...with a hard drive, most definitely.

When did a lack of common sense and a right for revenge be the key criteria for litigation?

Posted by: JB on August 28, 2002 01:53 PM

 

Didn't check out the link provided on facts about the McDonald's case, so this might be there, but I wanted to point something out about this case that is continually overlooked because it was so sensationalized to start with.

This woman only sued because McDonalds wouldn't cover her medical bills, a few thousand dollars. Their basic feeling was that she was in the wrong and had to live with the consequences of being a dope in the first place. She admitted her judgement lapsed, but repeated that all she was asking for was a few thousand dollars of recompense.

The answer in a nutshell: shove off, we are a large corporation with many lawyers and little time. So, they took them to court with a hugely blown out-of-proportion case in order to generate some media attention. Unfortunately, they got the wrong kind of attention, but at least she got a hearing.

I do think that the US has too many frivilous lawsuits, but I am frankly behind anyone who makes an example of a company that won't play ball. That's why I don't feel like Palm deserves what they are getting. It seems like an honest mistake, and they acknowledged and apologized. A refund seems ridiculous - how does the loss of a few color impair use of the device? Are they outputting color from it or using color in some critical way other than to make everything look pretty?

Posted by: Lydia on August 28, 2002 08:26 PM

 

While customers may have a legitimate *case* against Palm - what real damages can they truthfully claim? Was the product unsuitable for use? What real benefit wasn't delivered or what cost was incurred due to the absence of a few hundred colors in a color palette of thousands?

They are looking for a settlement -- most of which will go to the lawyers...who will grease the palms of politicians to stave off any serious tort reform legislation so they can blackmail more companies in the future. Ironic that companies settle (pay plaintiff's lawyers) to avoid legal fees (paying denfense lawyers) -- net result is having more lawsuits benefits all lawyers everywhere in the end. Who cares? You should since any future Palm products (or products from any company) will cost you more...you get to pay to feed the "sharks."

Palm should have learned from Intel's (Pentium?) chip scandal -- they should have allowed customers to *exchange* their devices for new upgraded ones or provided a way to return them (maybe pro-rated based on when they were purchased). I'd bet that few people would make the exchange -- just like very few people did with their Intel chips a few years ago.

Can't say I believe they would have knowingly made a false claim to the 16-bit capability -- after all, you'd have to know that some geek somewhere would figure it out and blow the whistle. Likely was an honest mistake by some engineer somewhere - or a component that got switched and impacted the total result (a lack of change management and testing). Now it's their PR firm that's blowing it. Maybe Palm will sue their PR firm next year for damages...

Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on August 29, 2002 01:17 AM

 

While customers may have a legitimate *case* against Palm - what real damages can they truthfully claim?
I suspect they will claim Palm deceived m130 customers into purchasing it by making false claims about its capabilities - specific, unambiguous capabilities that made the m130 appear to be better than its competitors.

I hope some of the facts will come out from the lawsuit. Having worked with computer manufacturers, I'd like to know:
    1) Are all the hardware components in the m130 capable of 16-bit color?
    2) Is the m130 hardware engineered for 16-bit color?
    3) Is the m130 software engineered for 16-bit color?
In order for the m130 to support 16-bit color, the answer to all these questions must be "Yes" and can be ascertained by examining different documents created, reviewed, and authorized by different people.

Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 29, 2002 11:40 AM